Talk:Keith Ellison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ellison did not attempt to go to Israel in 2008-2009[edit]

The article claims that Ellison attempted to enter Israel during the 2008-2009 Gaza conflict, but was denied entry. In the video that was cited for this, Ellison explains that he was not allowed into GAZA during his 2007 trip to Israel. He was, however, allowed entry into the rest of Israel. I will edit the page accordingly. -MJR

Allegations, part VII[edit]

Anyone have thoughts re this? VQuakr (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's time we revisit this issue an actually start observing policy. The text can be left as is, but this deserves its own subsection. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The section covering the abuse charges needs to be expanded. Bare-bones details (basically key omissions) are not acceptable with the range, quantity, and depth of coverage available on this from heavily reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
We had an RfC on this, which pretty clearly didn't show consensus to expand the section. What has changed since then? VQuakr (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
The RfC was never closed, and the matter received sustained attention from reliable sources over the course of that RfC and after. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Formal RfC closure isn't mandatory. Examples of sustained coverage? VQuakr (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not, but an RfC which was never closed shouldn't be presented as a reason not to take action on something. WP:YOUCANSEARCH and there are at least five pieces on the allegations from the NYT alone.[1][2][3][4][5]Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Of course the RfC is a reason to not unilaterally begin adding the contested content. The lack of (completely optional) formal closure doesn't mean the discussion never happened. Per WP:CONLEVEL, you need to establish a similar level of consensus to include. WP:YOUCANSEARCH is an essay (and you have breached WP:AGF by citing it since it is about filibuster/WP:SEALION type requests). WP:BURDEN is the relevant policy - as an editor bringing up a proposal to add content, you are expected produce the proposal (and establish consensus). All sources you provided are from late 2018; they are not evidence supporting your claim of "sustained attention". VQuakr (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly agree with VQuakr. The amount of detail added for what an investigation found to be unsubstantiated is absurd. nableezy - 20:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not interested in wikilitigating with you over whether or not my editor was "unilateral." It wasn't against any established consensus, consensus is subject to change, and even though the editing process is collaborate, any individual edit can be characterized as "unilateral," which is a loaded and essentially meaningless term in this context. A number of strong arguments were made in favor of conclusion, based on the prevalence of reliable sources. The arguments against were not grounded in policy in many instances ("there were no criminal charges" "the media is being political in reporting on this") and where they were, they were extremely weak ("including this is a BLP violation" (it isn't—see WP:VERIFIABILITY and [[WP:BLP]) and "WP:BLPGOSSIP means we can't include it" ("gossip" refers to the quality of the source, not the nature of the accusation, and the sources were top-notch). And "sustained" means over a significant period of time, not ongoing, and these allegations were covered for the duration of the race. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I doubt this is a surprise to you, but I don't accept you as a neutral arbiter of which arguments were strong or weak. Since the RfC, investigations into the accusations have found the accusations were unsubstantiated, so the argument to expand the section has gotten inherently weaker, not stronger. Particularly in the absence of evidence of continuing coverage. VQuakr (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Funny, didn't you just ask me to WP:AGF? I'm willing to logically explain how I draw my conclusions; if you came to a different one, I encourage you to do the same. A "not guilty" or "unsubstantiated" verdict or finding, whether it be by a law enforcement agency, jury, or independent investigator (as was the case here) does not diminish the significance of a matter if its been substantially addressed by reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
That seems to be a new one. I agree that with the findings that the argument for inclusion at all has gotten weaker, and the idea that it should be expanded further instead of potentially reduced to be rather out there. nableezy - 21:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to follow up with me on user talk if you think I violated that policy (hint: I didn't). I'm not going to WP:REHASH the same reasoning from six months ago if you have nothing new to propose. VQuakr (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Perhaps that concept is something new if you live under a rock, but the coverage of a subject in an article should always be proportional to the level of sources that have reported on it. My expansion was modest at best with no more than five lines, which pales in comparison to the degree of attention the abuse allegations received from prominent, major news outlets. "Continued coverage" is a made-up standard that doesn't exist (if there were ongoing coverage, I'm sure I'd hear an argument about recentism)—we look at the body of coverage, and it's substantial. This warrants addressing the issue in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps your condescension would be better directed elsewhere. The issue is already addressed in the article. nableezy - 03:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Not in proportion to the sources, and this kind of minimization violates WP:NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes it is. And no it doesnt. I can make blanket statements too. nableezy - 13:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Several dozen articles covered the allegations, including at least five from the New York Times; what we currently have is two brief sentences light on any detail or substance. Sorry, that's not WP:PROPORTION. Check your talk page and discontinue your WP:HOUNDING. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I am shortly going to post a list of prominent, reliable sources and pieces on this talk page, organized by month, showing the depth and range of coverage during the campaign. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Try to not dishonestly present sources from prior to the investigation as showing something that was later proven to be false. As far as "hounding", that might be taken more seriously if it were not so obviously hypocritical. nableezy - 14:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
And oh by the way there are some 32,000 news articles discussing Ellison. A dozen news reports about an accusation that was then investigated and found to be baseless does not merit any more space here. As VQuakr wrote Since the RfC, investigations into the accusations have found the accusations were unsubstantiated, so the argument to expand the section has gotten inherently weaker, not stronger. nableezy - 15:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
These arguments are just incoherent nonsense, and I'm not going to further discuss your conduct issues on this page. WP:GHITS are meaningless - weight is not a math formula, it's a nuanced analysis based on coverage in reliable sources, and this was the most prominent aspect of the Minnesota AG's race. Whether or not the allegations can be proven true is not at issue here - this isn't a court of law, this is an encyclopedia that relies on what's been covered in reliable sources, and these allegations were. Some gems from the "discussion" that took place last year included editors calling the coverage political motivated mudslinging, saying that unless the allegations resulted in criminal charges, they were undue, and that they were unproven (duh) or that it somehow constituted "gossip." The notion that these appallingly ill-informed arguments should hold any water is laughable. The section should reflect the degree of coverage in the sources, not editors' desire to minimize a controversial event. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
You don't have consensus for your additions, so they've been reverted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Point me to this alleged consensus against including it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, this thread right here, where you clearly don't have any consensus to include it, is pretty clear. If you think more input is needed, launch another RFC. But you are the only person on this talk page arguing for inclusion of the material, in the face of clear objections from multiple editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Objections without any reasonable basis (one alludes to a false consensus, the other on Google hits) is disruptive WP:STONEWALLING. I'm tempted to pull some of the gems from the last discussion to show the extent of this problem on this topic. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
You are not the judge of what is reasonable. Please read WP:ONUS. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You very clearly do not have consensus for your additions. Kindly cease edit-warring. And also please do not misrepresent others arguments. My reply on ghits was in response to the silly claim that because "several dozen" articles (nearly all predate the investigation that found the accusations to be baseless) include something that means we must expand that section. You cannot both cite the number of sources for something as proof that it should be included and then complain about somebody citing the number of sources for something. Or you can, but that just means that there is one more hypocritical argument being made by your good self. nableezy - 18:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
You're missing the fact that we don't treat reliable sources and unreliable sources the same and GHITs aggregates the two. If we were to look at all of the reliable sources that covered the Minnesota AG race, particularly the most reliable ones like the NYT, the vast, vast majority cover the allegations. And WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires that we document what those sources say, not pick and choose or minimize the information. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
No, youre missing that I said news sources. Not all google hits. We also cover the allegations, with due weight. You seemingly expect us to ignore that there was an investigation here. One that found the accusations to be baseless. nableezy - 18:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
A "news hits" search that yields 32,000 results is equally unreliable. And the investigation commissioned by the DFL found them "unsubstantiated," not "baseless." Try to be more careful in your language, the accuser is just as entitled to BLP protections. Furthermore, and I've said this before, the disposition of the allegations does not make them carry any less weight. The same goes for Brett Kavanaugh and any other BLP on someone who's been publicly accused of a crime or misconduct. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Lol, you do know what the word "unsubstantiated" means, right? You may want to pick up a thesaurus, where you will find under synonyms the word "baseless". And if the word synonym is a problem, here. You certainly can hold that opinion, others apparently do not. Including two of us here. nableezy - 19:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Not that it has any impact on the WP:WEIGHT of the allegations, but "baseless" and "unsubstantiated" have completely different connotations, and only one of them was used by the sources. Why don't we just stick to what the sources have said rather than your own paraphrasing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you see my adding anything to the article here? Guess that doesnt matter if we are being this pedantic. nableezy - 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The domestic abuse allegations should not be part of the section "Race for Minnesota Attorney General", unless the intention is to show the abuse allegations were politically motivated to smear his campaign, or worse, to make a connection between the two to smear his campaign via this Wikipedia article. Domestic abuse might be in the "Personal" section as part of his personal relationships. -- GreenC 19:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so. It was a public, political scandal that emerged during and deeply impacted the Minnesota AG race. Sections on campaigns regularly cover scandals that occurred during them. Suggest you strike your comments about it being a "politically motivated.. smear" unless you have the sources to support it; this is not a WP:FORUM and your speculation is inappropriate. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Well several of us apparently do think so. The amount of material dedicated to what an investigation found to be baseless accusations is already more than necessary. nableezy - 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Minimizing and/or whitewashing a prominent controversy based on a simple majority and nothing else is disruptive; it's not up to a small group of editors to contradict WP:NPOV. Keep it up and you can expect formal dispute resolution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
And again, "baseless" is an incorrect description of the accusations, and neither your nor GreenC's personal opinions about the accuser or their allegations are in any way relevant. You should start deferring to what the sources have reported and stop treating this like a WP:FORUM. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
No its not, the investigation found the accusation to be unsubstantiated. As demonstrated earlier, baseless is synonymous with unsubstantiated. It is not my personal opinion, it is the view of the independent investigation that the accusations were without merit. Do whatever you want, but absent a consensus for inclusion the addition stays out per WP:ONUS. nableezy - 21:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Correct, it was reported that the DFL investigation found the accusation "unsubstantiated." Are you now suggesting that if an accusation is unproven, it doesn't carry weight, regardless of the sources addressing it? I think you might find some resistance to that (very flawed) reasoning on more than a few pages. And frankly, WP:FORUM comments would carry no weight in an RfC discussion, and I don't see why they should here. I would like to hear some more balanced opinions on this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
You are not in a position to determine whose comments carry weight. You do not decide these things. You are not in charge here. Im sorry if you are under the misimpression that you are, but that really seems like a personal problem. If you want to open an RFC go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. But here, in this discussion, every single person who has commented besides you has disagreed with you. There was already an RFC on this subject, one that concluded prior to the investigation that found the accusations baseless. Its conclusion likewise doesnt show any consensus for further expansion, and the case for such an expansion has, as a number of us have said, been reduced by the investigation that found the accusation to be baseless. nableezy - 23:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Any editor who can back up their claim with evidence (see: sources) is entitled to assert that something has WP:WEIGHT, something I'm more than happy to do (and have done). I'd encourage you to do the same with your arguments. And did you just say that an RfC "found" the accusations to be "baseless?" I wasn't aware that the purpose of an RfC was to investigate an accuser's claims. I also didn't notice that discussion ever formally being closed, but please point me to what you're looking at if you've found such a consensus. Likewise, a number of editors evaluating the claims themselves rather than the sources covering them has nothing to do with policy, and consensus is not a vote count. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I think the only thing worth responding to here is if I said an RFC found the accusations to be baseless. No, I did not say that. I said the RFC concluded prior to the investigation that found the accusations to be baseless. And that, since that time, given the investigation that found the accusation to be baseless, the case for expansion has gotten weaker. A formal closure is not required, something that has already been explained to you. You can keep babbling about how consensus is not a vote count, but you clearly do not have consensus here. If you did, somebody else might have supported your position. nableezy - 23:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah, "babbling." Is that like the Tower of Babel? Thanks for keeping it civil. The RfC didn't "conclude" anything; you are in no position to determine what the consensus was, now that you're vigorously arguing one side. Any supposed "consensus" that relies on arguments that refer to reliably sourced accusations as "political mudslinging" (I won't name the editor who said this, but check the archives yourself) or implies that real-world proceedings have an effect on what gets covered in WP (other than reliable source coverage) is highly dubious. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
lol, the day I take a civility lesson from you is the day I eat my hat. Again, your belief on what is or is not highly dubious is of nearly no importance here. We operate on consensus, and per WP:ONUS you need to show consensus for an addition. You very clearly do not have that. nableezy - 00:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
As noted above, WP:REHASH. You didn't have consensus for this before, so what has changed that warrants its inclusion now? VQuakr (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Farrakhan articles of almost 30 years ago mention removed[edit]

I removed this information:

While there, he wrote several articles in support of Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam. Ellison graduated with a Juris Doctor in 1990.[1][2]

This was a couple of articles he wrote while in college during the days Farrakhan was very popular with many black men who were searching for an identity. He has since denounced Farrakhan. To mention a couple of articles he wrote almost 30 years ago while in college is not the way to write an encyclopedic article. Gandydancer (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It was determined to be relevant by reliable sources, which is what we go by—the fact that you personally think a part of his background is justifiable or being unfairly scrutinized is utterly and totally irrelevant. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Keith Ellison (DFL) 58B". Minnesota House of Representatives. Archived from the original on September 24, 2006.
  2. ^ Condon, Patrick (July 6, 2006). "Muslim seeks both House seat and a place in history". The Bay State Banner. Boston, Massachusetts: Next Street Financial LLC. Associated Press. Retrieved April 25, 2009.